no title

Questions left unanswered

Franklin County commissioners need new study of sheriff's office

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Also in Opinion

Subscribe to The Dispatch

Already a subscriber?
Enroll in EZPay and get a free gift!
Enroll now.

Sunday March 31, 2013 6:44 AM

Franklin County, after spending a year and $89,000 to size up its sheriff’s office, has ended up
with a disappointing study that sidesteps the tough choices and doesn't include the cost
information that commissioners need to make good decisions on behalf of taxpayers.

The report, by Voorhis Associates Inc., is crippled by simplistic, boilerplate recommendations —
“Think strategically and act tactically” and “Be effective” — and by the consultant’s failure to
price out options to inform decisions about changes in technology, practices, staffing and work
assignments. The Colorado-based firm said this was beyond the scope of its contract.

But how can commissioners judge whether the sheriff’s office should hire more deputies or
replace them civilian guards, or use a mix of both, without knowing what this would save or perhaps
cost in overtime?

How to determine if it’s best to strike mutual-aid agreements with suburban, township and
Columbus police to trim or supplement sheriff’s patrols?

Or judge if it makes sense to continue paying for specialties such as divers, bomb experts and a
SWAT team that duplicate services available from nearby law-enforcement agencies?

Commissioner John O’Grady was unhappy with what his board heard on Monday as consultants spent
two hours going over an executive summary that stretches to 82 pages.

To be fair, Voorhis was caught between two clients with different agendas; commissioners and
Sheriff Zach Scott split the cost of the study. In retrospect, this was a bad idea. Scott opposes
civilianizing jail guards, as is the practice in similar counties. He also says he is
short-staffed.

And he wants to keep the specialized teams — many of which did not exist before 9/11, when
Homeland Security began pouring money into communities for equipment and training. In 2001, O’Grady
points out, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office had a budget of $49 million; today it’s $94
million.

Commissioners have a fiduciary duty to ensure that county spending is justified and
reasonable.

They should consider hiring another expert to fill in the blanks and provide the cost-benefit
analysis required to either justify the sheriff’s requests or impel changes.

As O’Grady noted, “Without an analysis of cost, this (Voorhis study) becomes a wish list for
Santa Claus. Suddenly, a $94 million budget is lord knows what.”

The sheriff’s office spends nearly a third of the county’s operating dollars. That makes it an
operation that should be subject to regular review and careful budgeting.

Money spent for jails, patrols or specialty law-enforcement teams is not available for myriad
other county needs: job-training or child-care programs to end welfare, proper sewage systems for
township homes, additional prosecutors or courtroom needs.

No one wants to jeopardize public safety, but it is the job of the county commissioners not only
to ensure public safety, but to spend money smarter and give taxpayers the maximum return on their
dollar.

As local-government dollars shrink and Franklin County urbanizes, government can’t simply keep
doing things as it has in years past. This study needs a do-over.